Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 12:58:59 -0400 (EDT) From: CyberPeasant <djv@bedford.net> To: jak@cetlink.net (John Kelly) Cc: fpawlak@execpc.com, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD versus LINUX Message-ID: <199805011658.MAA27382@pollux.loco.net> In-Reply-To: <354b8c8c.300570838@mail.cetlink.net> from John Kelly at "May 1, 98 09:28:13 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:30:41 -0500 (CDT), Frank Pawlak
> <fpawlak@execpc.com> wrote:
>
> >In answering the question as I did, I was trying to provide some
> >information to persons that were switching from Linux to FreeBSD and
> >asking for information on the differences between them, and quite
> >frankly were given bullshit for an answer.
>
> I don't think so. Take of poll of all ISP's running either of the
> two, and I think you'll find that the vast majority prefer FreeBSD
> instead of Linux. My statement stands. "Amateurs like Linux, but
> professionals prefer FreeBSD."
>
I think it should be added, there's nothing wrong about being an
amateur. The two groups have different needs. After a career
starting with punch cards and paper tape, I'm really happy about
being an amateur again. The variety of Unix flavors available for
a song is a real delight! However, after a foray into Linux, I find
myself more comfortable in BSD. The differences are slight (gcc is
gcc, X is X, BIND is BIND, etc etc). But it is true, a professional
programmer or admin is /used/ to a certain environment, and that
environment tends to resemble BSD.
Mostly it is my impression that the 3 BSD's offer solid kernels,
and more complete utilities, with fewer glitches. (NFS, rsh, rlogin,
etc come to mind here), and a greater impression of being a "unified
whole" instead of a patchwork. Linux lacks or has bugs in some
system calls. (mmap(), fcntl(), vfork(),...maybe my info here is obsolete).
Linux has growing pains, but maybe BSD is senile...BSD source traces
back to the ancient papyri and tablets. Some Linux ports are, frankly,
sloppy. (timed, rsh). Some of Linux networking code has design
problems. (visible in the wretched performance of Linux as an NFS
server or client -- maybe this has changed, though.).
BSD is also easier to configure, but that is my opinion about what
is easy. Linux offers a lot of flash, and really tracks new
hardware,bugs,exploits faster... but with this speed of development
come speedbumps. Linux = Ferrari, BSD=Mercedes-Benz, (OpenBSD
comes with bulletproof tinted glass, FreeBSD with the high performance
diesel engine, NetBSD with the ability to run on any road you come
across), NT='72 Yugo that's having trouble passing safety inspection
(no brakes, lights or wipers, and burns a lot of oil), W95=tricycle
with bent front wheel and one pedal. I really think it comes down
to analogies like this, until a specific feature is singled out
for discussion. I have a vague impression that Linux spends a lot
of time "in the shop" -- lots of tweaking. The BSD machines just
sit here, and run.
Disks are cheap enough and boot loaders clever enough, that it is reasonable
to suggest to a prospective adapter of Unix, to install nearly identical
Linux and BSD systems, and judge for himself in the actual application
areas he needs. (this, gentlefolk, is /luxury/.)
One thing not mentioned (I think) in favor of the newbie chosing a BSD,
is that textbooks going back a long time use examples from BSD.
Dave
--
<----. mailto/pgpfinger: djv@bedford.net
<----|===================================
<----' Crathva fxrjre
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805011658.MAA27382>